coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicants were born in 1972 and 1968 respectively. They were serving their prison sentences at Bergama prison at the time of the application.
5.  The applicants were arrested and taken into police custody by police officers at the Anti-terror branch of the İzmir Security Directorate on 7 and 9 September 1996 respectively.
6.  On 19 September 1996 the İzmir State Security Court ordered the applicants’ remand in custody.
7.  On 22 October 1996 the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with that court and accused the applicants and fifteen other suspects of membership in an illegal organisation, namely the TIKB (Turkish Revolutionary Communist Union - Türkiye İhtilalci Komünistler Birliği). He requested that the applicants be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.
8.  On 24 December 1997 the İzmir State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment.
9.  On 24 November 1998 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Białystok, Poland.
5.  On 22 December 1992 the applicant was involved in a car accident as a result of which one person died. Subsequently, the prosecution service opened an investigation in the case.
6.  On 31 March 1993 the prosecution service discontinued the investigation. Subsequently, an auxiliary prosecutor appealed and the investigation was resumed.
7.  On 25 June 1993 the applicant was charged with manslaughter. It appears that the applicant had by then left the country and was not notified of the decision.
8.  On 30 June 1993 the applicant was indicted before the Białystok District Court.
9.  On 11 February 1994 the trial court decided to stay the proceedings on the grounds that the applicant’s address could not be established as he had left the country.
10.  On 29 March 1996 the District Court issued an arrest warrant against the applicant. On 2 July 1996 the applicant was arrested by the police while crossing the Polish border.
11.  On 8 August 1996 the trial court resumed the proceedings and held a hearing. Subsequently, the District Court held hearings on 19 September and 10 December 1996 and 11 February and 25 June 1997.
12.  In 1998 the court held hearings on 18 February, 19 April, 1 September and 8 October.
13.  On 12 October 1998 the Białystok District Court gave judgment. The trial court acquitted the applicant.
14.  On 16 February 1999 the Białystok Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) examined the appeal lodged by the auxiliary prosecutor. The appellate court quashed the judgment and remitted the case.
15.  On 26 November 1999 the Białystok District Court held a hearing. In 2000 the trial court held one hearing on 28 January and ordered that an expert opinion be prepared.
16.  On 10 May 2001 the next hearing was held. At the hearing on 8 June 2001 the applicant pleaded guilty. On the same day the Białystok District Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to a suspended prison sentence. The judgment is final.
5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Kyiv.
6.  In 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Moskovskyy District Court of Kyiv against the Kvant Scientific Research Institute (the “KSRI”), a State-owned entity, seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation. By decision of 8 October 2001, the court awarded the applicant UAH 3,424.98[1] in salary arrears and other payments. On 26 November 2001 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal changed in part the decision of the first instance court and, in addition to the aforementioned sum, awarded the applicant UAH 1,500[2] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
7.  On 21 January 2002 the Shevchenkivskyy District Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings.
8.  In January 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv against the Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the decision of 26 November 2001. On 6 March 2003 the court found against the applicant, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs’ Service. On 1 July 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the first-instance court and ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to seize the movable property of the KSRI. According to the applicant, this decision has not been enforced.
9.  On 15 October 2003 the applicant received the amount due to him in full.
5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Celje.
6.  On 15 December 1997 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer I had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZM.
7.  On 11 June 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against I and ZM in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,122,757 Slovenian tolars (approximately 8,850 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 19 June 2000 and 7 April 2003 the applicant lodged six preliminary written submissions.
Between 18 September 2000 and 26 June 2002 he made four requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the four hearings held between 26 September 2002 and 24 April 2003, one was adjourned at the request of the applicant in order to allow him time to reply to I’s late submissions.
During the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert.
At the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 21 July 2003.
8.  On 23 July 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).
On 19 May 2005 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 8 September 2005.
9.  On 13 September 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 13 September 2005 the Celje District Court discontinued the proceedings against I due to its bankruptcy. The proceedings against ZM continued.
The proceedings are still pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Orehova vas.
6.  On 20 May 1995 the applicant was injured at work in a lignite mine. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 4 November 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against his employer and ZT in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 1,950,000 SIT (approximately 8,120.00 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 20 November 1996 and 3 January 2000 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 2 September 1997 and 12 November 1999 he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the three hearings held between 26 November 1998 and 20 January 2000 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 24 February 2000.
8.  On 10 March 2000 the applicant’s employer and ZT appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).
On 6 December 2000 the court allowed the ZT’s appeal in part, amended the judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 27 December 2000.
9.  During the re-examination proceedings, between 2 February 2001 and 4 April 2001, the applicant made two requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Between 7 February 2001 and 6 June 2002 he lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Of the three hearings held between 12 June 2001 and 6 June 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 17 June 2002.
10.  On 27 June 2002 the applicant appealed the Celje Higher Court.
On 18 September 2003, the second-instance court dismissed his appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 8 October 2003.
4.  The applicant, Mrs Dragica Božić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1943 and currently lives in Sotin, Croatia.
5.  On 27 September 1991 the Croatian Pension Fund, Sisak Office (Republički fond mirovinskog i invalidskog osiguranja, Područna služba u Sisku – the Sisak Office) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to a widow’s (family) pension as of 6 August 1991. However, no payments were made until 1 August 1997.
6.  On 18 September 1997 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings in order to recover the pension instalments due.
7.  On 14 June 1999 the Sisak Office dismissed her request. It found that the payment of her pension was stopped between 6 August 1991 and 31 July 1997 since during that period the applicant had resided in the occupied areas of Croatia and her address had been unknown. On 9 July 1999 the applicant appealed against that decision.
8.  On 19 June 2000 the Croatian Pension Fund, Central Office (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Središnja služba – the Central Office) quashed the first-instance decision for factual errors and remitted the case.
9.  In the resumed proceedings, the Sisak Office dismissed the applicant’s request on 9 October 2000. The applicant appealed.
10.  On 9 April 2001 the Central Office again quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.
11.  On 22 August 2001 the Sisak Office for the third time dismissed the applicant’s request. The applicant appealed.
12.  On 15 November 2001 the Central Office for the third time quashed the first-instance decision for factual shortcomings and remitted the case. It instructed the Sisak Office to enquire whether the applicant had received a pension from the authorities that had exercised control over the occupied territory.
13.  In the subsequent proceedings, on 16 May 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal for failure to respond under the Administrative Procedure Act (see paragraph 21 below) since the Sisak Office did not render a decision within the statutory time-limit of two months. Given that the Central Office also failed to decide on this appeal within the statutory time-limit of two months, on 17 December 2002 the applicant brought an action for failure to respond (see paragraph 22 below) in the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske). The applicant subsequently withdrew this action since in January 2003 the first-instance decision had been rendered.
14.  On 29 January 2003 the Sisak Office accepted the applicant’s request in part. It awarded her the pension instalments as of 1 October 1994 and dismissed her request for the instalments due prior to that date. The applicant appealed.
15.  On 20 May 2003 the Central Office dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
16.  On 1 July 2003 the applicant brought an administrative action in the Administrative Court challenging that decision.
17.  On 27 January 2005 the Administrative Court gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim.
18.  On 7 March 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court against that judgment. The proceedings are currently pending before that court.
6.  The first five applicants were born in 1910, 1935, 1939, 1912 and 1940 respectively. The sixth and the seventh applicant were born on unspecified dates. At the relevant time all the applicants lived in the town of Voronezh.
7.  The applicants were entitled to pecuniary awards against the State in connection with the late payment of their pensions.
8.  By judgment of 7 August 2000 of the Novovoronezhskiy Town Court of the Voronezh Region (“the Town Court”) the first applicant was granted 2,117.38 Russian roubles (“RUR”, approximately 84 euros, “EUR”) to be paid by the State. The judgment came into force on 28 September 2000.
9.  Having examined the claims of the third and the fourth applicant, on 5 September 2000 the Town Court granted them RUR 1,461.78 (approximately EUR 59) and RUR 2,320.81 (approximately EUR 93) respectively against the State. This judgment came into force on 15 September 2000.
10.  On 18 September 2000 the Town Court granted the second applicant’s claim and awarded her RUR 3,346.63 (approximately EUR 140) to be paid by the State.
11.  On 25 September 2000 the fifth applicant was successful in a claim before the Town Court against the pension authority. The court granted him RUR 2,318.63 (approximately EUR 97). The judgment came into force on 4 October 2000.
12.  The awards in respect of the sixth and the seventh applicant were made by the Town Court on 18 and 19 September 2000.
13.  On an unspecified date the applicants applied to bailiffs’ service, requesting to assist in enforcement of the said awards.
14.  By letter of 30 January 2001 the bailiffs’ service returned the execution writs without enforcement.
15.  It appears that the above judgments were not enforced at least until 25 May 2004 which is the date on which the respondent Government have filed their observations.
5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Šoštanj.
6. On 24 August 1998 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZM.
7.  On 8 April 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZM in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 4,136,681 Slovenian tolars (approximately 17,240 euros) for the injuries sustained.
On 19 January 2000 and 17 October 2002 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.
On 19 January and 16 October 2001 she made requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the two hearings held on 19 February and 5 November 2002, neither was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert.
At the last hearing, the parties reached a conditional court settlement. On 6 November 2002 ZM revoked the settlement and the court consequently delivered a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 9 December 2002.
8.  On 24 December 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZM cross-appealed.
On 5 May 2004 the court allowed both appeals in part.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 24 August 2004.
9.  On 21 September 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) and requested that a Supreme Court’s judge stepped down.
On 25 January 2005 the President of the Supreme Court issued a decision rejecting the applicant’s request to exclude a judge from the proceedings.
The proceedings are still pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Kherson.
6.  In 2001 and 2002 the applicant instituted two separate sets of proceedings in the Labour Disputes Commission against the State Enterprise “Khersonskyy Sudnobudivelnyy Zavod” (the “KSZ”), seeking recovery of salary arrears. By decisions of 12 February 2001 and 25 April 2002, the Labour Disputes Commission allowed the applicant’s claims and ordered the KSZ to pay the applicant a total of UAH 2,387[1] in salary arrears.
7.  On 28 February 2001 and 6 June 2002 the Komsomolskyy District Bailiffs’ Service of Kherson instituted enforcement proceedings concerning the decisions of 12 February 2001 and 25 April 2002, respectively.
8.  On 6 October 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the decisions in her favour had not been executed due to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the debtor’s lack of funds.
9.  On 20 May 2005 the applicant was paid the amounts due to her in full.
5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Velenje.
6.  On 14 December 1998 the Velenje Unit of the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund (“the PDIF”) awarded the applicant an invalidity status of fifth degree for the period after 12 December 1996. On 17 August 1999 the PDIF rejected the applicant’s appeal.
7. On 22 September 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings against the PDIF in the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court (Delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani) contesting, inter alia, the date of the occurrence of the injury.
Between 25 October 1999 and 16 September 2002 the applicant lodged three written submissions.
Between 17 January 2001 and 8 March 2002 she made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.
On 1 October 2002 a hearing was held and the court delivered a judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 29 October 2002.
8.  On 4 November 2002 the applicant appealed to the High Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče).
On 14 May 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 3 June 2004.
9.  On 23 June 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 1 March 2005 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The decision was served on the applicant on 29 March 2005.
5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Ponikva.
6.  On 25 January 1996 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 4 November 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,304,324 tolars (approximately 9,600 euros) for the injuries sustained.
At an undetermined time in 1998, the judge presiding the case was appointed to the Celje Higher Court and the case was transferred to a new judge.
On 12 November 1997 and 19 January 1998, the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.
Between 4 May 1998 and 24 May 2000, the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Of the six hearings held between 5 May 1998 and 30 May 2000, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings, the court appointed three medical experts.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 13 July 2000.
8.  On 25 July 2000 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.
On 4 July 2001 the court dismissed both appeals.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 29 august 2001.
9.  On 14 September 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 4 July 2002 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 10 September 2002.
4.  The applicants were born in 1948 and 1938 respectively and live in the town of Yaroslavl.
5.  The applicants are co-owners of a house situated near a local police and fire station.
6.  They sued the Ministry of the Interior (“the Ministry”, Министерство внутренних дел РФ) for damages and new housing, alleging that the building and maintenance works which had been carried out by the station seriously damaged a local drainage system and lead to systematic seasonal flooding of their house.
7.  By judgment of 5 December 2000 the Krasnoperekopskiy District Court of the town of Yaroslavl partly granted their claims and ordered the Ministry to provide the families of the first and second applicant with housing measuring at least 30.6 and 35.56 square metres respectively and consisting of at least two rooms.
8.  The court also ordered the Ministry to pay the applicants 3,353 Russian roubles (“RUR”) and RUR 26,165 respectively in damages.
9.  The judgment of 5 December 2000 was upheld by the Yaroslavl Regional Court on appeal on 12 March 2001.
10.  On 11 July 2001 the applicants instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 5 December 2000, as upheld on 12 March 2001.
11.  By money transfers of 18 July 2001 and 3 September 2002 the second applicant received RUR 431.60 and RUR 25,733.40.
12.  By money transfer of 4 September 2002 the first applicant received RUR 3,353.
13.  Insofar as the judgment ordered the Ministry to grant the applicants free housing, on 28 August 2002 the housing committee of the regional branch of the Ministry of Interior, a body in charge of distribution of flats in residences built at the expense of the Ministry, decided to provide the applicants with two flats, measuring 55.6 and 53.1 square metres respectively.
14.  On 3 October 2002, once the construction of the block of flats had been finalised, both applicants received permission to move in.
4.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in İstanbul.
5.  In 1997 the Bakırköy Municipality expropriated land (plot nos. 154/36 and 154/3) belonging to the applicant in İstanbul. A committee of experts assessed the value of the land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicant when the expropriation took place.
6.  On 9 January 1997 the applicant filed two separate actions for additional compensation with the Bakırköy Civil Court of First Instance.
7.  In respect of plot no. 154/36, the first-instance court, on 16 October 1997, awarded the applicant additional compensation of 1,768,970,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 8,840 euros (EUR)), plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 10 January 1997. On 31 March 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. On 21 October 1998 the Municipality’s request for a rectification of the decision was dismissed by the Court of Cassation. This latter decision was served on the applicant on 30 November 1998.
8.  In respect of plot no. 154/3, the first-instance court, on 20 May 1998, awarded the applicant additional compensation of TRL 6,487,209,968 (approximately EUR 23,000), plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 9 January 1997. On 1 December 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first‑instance court. On 10 June 1999 the Municipality’s request for a rectification of the decision was dismissed by the Court of Cassation. This latter decision was served on the applicant on 2 August 1999.
9.  In the meantime, on 7 April 1999 the Municipality paid the applicant, in total, TRL 15,972,726,000 (approximately EUR 39,438) covering additional compensation, interest, costs and expenses.
4.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Ankara.
5.  On an unspecified date in 1990, the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in Ankara in order to build the Ankara Central Motorway. The authorities paid him the value of the land, assessed by a committee of experts, when the expropriation took place.
6.  Following the applicant’s request, on 26 December 1994 the Ankara Civil Court awarded him additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate applicable.
7.  On 22 January 1996 the Court of Cassation upheld that judgment.
8.  On 4 February 1998 the amount of 3,618,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) was paid to the applicant.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Ankara.
5.  On an unspecified date in 1990 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in Ankara in order to build the Ankara Central Motorway. The authorities paid him the value of the land, assessed by a committee of experts, when the expropriation took place.
6.  Following the applicant’s request, on 27 June 1995 the Ankara Civil Court awarded him additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate applicable.
7.  On 18 March 1996 the Court of Cassation upheld that judgment.
8.  On 18 February 1998 the amount of 4,560,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) was paid to the applicant.